We will continue this subject by quoting Lam. 4:7:

“Her [Israelite] Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy¹¹⁹ in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire ...”

Question: What is there about the purity of “snow” that we don’t seem to understand?

Question: What is there about a color “whiter than milk” that we don’t seem to understand?

Question: What is there about the phrase “more ruddy in body than rubies” that we don’t seem to understand?

Question: What is there about the color of “rubies” that we don’t seem to understand?

Question: Why does this Biblical verse exactly describe pure White, Caucasian Europeans or Americans, and their like kindred people around the world?

From Adam Clarke’s 6-volume Commentary, vol. 4, p. 410, we read about the above passage:

“Verse 7. Her Nazarites were purer than snow] ... nazir does not always signify a person separated under a religious vow; it sometimes denotes what is chief or eminent. It is applied to Joseph, Gen. xlix. 26. Blayney therefore translates here her nobles.

“‘Her nobles were purer than snow, they were

whiter than milk;

They were ruddier on the bone than rubies;

their veining was as the sapphires.’

“On which he remarks:– ‘In the first line the whiteness of their skin is described; and in the second, their flesh;’ and as ... gazar signifies to divide and intersect, as the blue veins do on the surface of the body, these are without doubt intended.”

This is quite interesting, for not only is the “whiteness” of our skin likened unto transparency with the red blood-tone showing through like rubies, but the blue veins of a Caucasian appear as sapphire! This is the same flesh-tone that a good photographer likes to attain in his finished pictures, and goes to great pains to achieve in perfection. This is amazing, for only the sunlight has a perfect balance between magenta (i.e., red) and blue. Therefore, all nonwhites are totally out of balance with nature. Further, this transparency of the skin of a Caucasian allows the absorption of vitamin D, which is so important for healthy bones and teeth. While one may obtain a certain amount of vitamin D from various foods, only the sun’s rays are sufficient for an adequate supply. Not only is vitamin D essential for healthy bones and teeth, but more so for the immune system. Hence, Yahweh created the Adamite to be especially resistant to disease and degeneration.

Back to Adam Clarke: “Milk will most certainly well apply to the whiteness of the skin; the beautiful ruby to the ruddiness of the flesh; and the sapphire, in its clear transcendent purple, to the veins in a fine complexion ....”

Benjamin Franklin must have been familiar with this passage, for he made a similar statement in his Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc., part 24:

“24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so .... the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.”

From this it is quite clear that Benjamin Franklin knew we were a group of thirteen White colonies to become one nation, but evidently he didn’t realize he was a pure ruby-White Israelite! At 1st Sam. 16:12, David is described thusly:

“And he sent, and brought him [David] in. Now he was ruddy¹³², and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And Yahweh said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he.”

From Adam Clarke’s 6-volume Commentary, vol. 2, p. 258, we read about this passage:

“Verse 12. He was ruddy] – I believe the word here means red-haired, he had golden locks. Hair of this kind is ever associated with a delicate skin and florid (i.e., flowery) complexion.” The KJV center column has, “fair of eyes”.

1st Sam. 17:42 further states: “And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy¹³², and of a fair³³⁰³ countenance.”

Strong’s Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary has the following on #’s 132 and 3303:

“132 ...ad-mo-nee´; from 119; reddish (of the hair or the complexion:– [In the KJV as] red, ruddy.

“3303 ...yaw-feh´; from 3302; beautiful (literally or figuratively):– [In the KJV as] + beautiful, beauty, comely, fair (-est, one), + goodly, pleasant, well.”

The Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Hebrew & English Lexicon adds to #3303: “... adjective, fair, beautiful ... as attribute of women ... less often of boy, young man ... (of Joseph); of Jerusalem ... of a singer ... cedar ... of everything in its time ... with beauty of eyes ....”

From the 3-volume The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia and Scriptural Dictionary, vol. 3, p. 1493, we read concerning the word “Ruddy”:

“RUDDY ...ad-mo-nee´, from ... aw-dam´, to be red), applied to David (1 Sam. xvi:12; xvii:42).

“It is a term used to denote either the color of David’s hair or of his complexion. It seems rather to refer to the complexion. This view is confirmed by the application of kindred words, as ‘Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy than rubies’ (Lam. iv:7); and ‘My beloved is white and ruddy’ (Cant. v:10, who is immediately described as black-haired (v:11).” You will notice that this source uses the expression “the application of kindred words” which is a very important observation! To make it more complete, I would say “both kindred words and kindred phrases.” In the case of “kindred words”, the second word would reinforce the meaning of the first word. Likewise, in the case of “kindred phrases”, the second phrase would reinforce the meaning of the first phrase. Therefore, the true meaning of the “word” or “phrase” is locked solidly in place, and the meaning cannot be challenged! It would be foolhardy to try!

I will now cite the 14-volume Webster’s Unified Encyclopedia and Dictionary on the word “ruddy”, vol. 11:

“ruddy (rud´i) adjective [compare ruddier, superlative ruddiest] Approaching redness; tinged with red; florid, as a ruddy countenance.”

Next, I will cite a dictionary which I recommend that every serious Bible student should have, as it contains all of the Indo-European root words. I also recommend along with this a KJV with a good center reference, like found in the Zondervan Classic Reference Bible (mainly because the KJV words are keyed to the Strong’s numbers). Third, I also recommend the Strong’s Concordance with the Hebrew and GreekDictionaries. The English dictionary which I advise is The American Heritage Dictionary of The English Language, published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

“ruddy (rud´e) adjective-dier, -diest. 1. Having a healthy, reddish color. 2. Reddish; rosy. 3.Slang. Confounded; darned. [Middle English rudie, Old English rudig, from rudu, red color. See reudh- in Appendix*] –rud´di-ly adjective –rud´di-ness noun.”

Appendix: “reudh-. Red, ruddy. I. O-grade form roudh- 1. Germanic raudaz in: a. Old English read, red: red;b. Old Norse rauthr, red: rorqual. 2. Germanic rauthnia- in Old Norse reynir, mountain ash, rowan (from its red berries), akin to the source of rowan. 3. Latin robeus,rubeus, red: rouge, rubella, rubeola, ruby, rubefacient. 4. Latin rufus (of dialectal Italic origin), reddish: refescent, rufous, Rufus. 5. Latin robus, red, in robigo,rubigo, rust: rubiginous. 6. Latin robur,robus, red oak, hardness, and robustus, strong: roble, roborant, robust; corroborate, rambunctious. II. Zero- grade from rudh- . 1. From rudh-a- in Germanic rudo in: a. Old English rudu, red color: ruddle, ruddy; b. Old English rudduc, robin: ruddock. 2. Suffixed form rudhsto in Germanic rust- in Old English rust, rust: rust. 3. Latin rubicundus, red, ruddy: rubicund. 4. Latin rubidus, red: rubidium. 5. Suffixed (stative) form rudh-e- in Latin rubere, to be red: rubescent, erubescence. 6. Suffixed form rudh-ro- in: a. Latin ruber, red: rubric, bilirubin; b. Latin rutilus, reddish: rutilant; c. Greek eruthros, red: erythema, erythro-, erysipelas. 7. Suffixed form rudh-to- in Latin russus, red: rissole, roux, russet ....”

Now that the complexion of the White, Caucasian, European (and related peoples) has been covered, we will concentrate on the swarthy complexion of the non- white peoples, and I will start by citing Song 4:7:

“Thou art all fair³³⁰³, my love; there is no spot³⁹⁷¹ in thee.”

Here the writer is contrasting the lovely with the unlovely; the beautiful with the ugly; the pure of race with the impure of race; the unspotted with the blemished.

From the 3-volume The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia and Scriptural Dictionary, vol. 1, p. 292, we read, concerning the word “Blemish”:

“BLEMISH ... Hebrew moom; Greek ... mo´ mos.

“There were various kinds of blemishes, i.e., imperfections or deformities, which excluded men from the priesthood, and animals from being offered in sacrifice. These blemishes are described in Lev. xxi:17-23; xxii: 19-25; Deut. xv:21. ... The rule concerning animals was extended to imperfections of the inward parts; thus, if an animal, free from outward blemish, was found, after being slain, internally defective, it was not offered in sacrifice.

“Offending professors are spots and ‘blemishes;’ are a reproach, dishonor, and plague to the church [sic ekklesia], and company that entertain them (2 Pet. ii:13; Jude 12).”

“Spots” and “blemishes” cover much more than just “offending professors”! Bible Works states:

“3971 מאום m'uwm {moom} usually muwm {moom}. Meaning: (1) blemish, spot, defect (1a) of physical defect (1b) of moral stain.”

From the 3-volume The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia and Scriptural Dictionary, vol. 3, p. 1610, we read concerning the word “Spot”:

“SPOT ... 1.Moom Hebrew ... a blemish, and usually so rendered; either physical (Lev. xxi:17, sq.; xxii:20;xxiv:19, 20, etc.; 2 Sam. xiv:25 ; Cant. iv :7) or moral (Deut. xxxii:5; Job xi:15; xxxi:7; Prov. ix:7).

“2. Bo-heh´rethHebrew ...a whitish spot on the skin, the ‘bright spot’ of incipient leprosy (Lev. xiii:2-39; xiv:56).

“3. Bo´hak Hebrew ... to be pale), the ‘freckled spot’ of pronounced leprosy (Lev. xiii:39).

“4. Klab-ar-boo-raw´Hebrew ... a streak, according to Gesenius, the stripes of the tiger (Jer. xiii:23), used as an illustration of the inability of men to rid themselves of evil character.

“5. Taw-law´ Hebrew ... to cover with pieces, spotted, variegated; as ‘sheep or goats’ (Gen. xxx: 32-39; Ezek. xvi:16, A.V. ‘divers colors’).

“6. Christ offered himself to God without spot (... am´o-mos). The Greek word ... has´pee-los, means spotless, free from censure (1 Tim. vi:14), from vice, and so unsullied (2 Pet, iii:14) ....”

This raises a critical question concerning our redemption, and that: is how can one’s sins (which are spots) be removed? The answer is simple: (1) one can send his spotted sins forward to the judgment, or (2) one can allow his sins to follow him to the judgment. Bear in mind, there is one sin (stain) that is impossible to remove from one’s record, and that is the sin of race-mixing, for which there is no remedy, now or ever. However, it is the product of the race-mixer which is condemned forever, rather than the race-mixer who was responsible for the miscegenation. A fornicator can repent (Rev. 2:21), but a bastard shall never enter the congregation (Deut. 23:2).

So the reader can better understand all of this, I will quote from Philip Jones’ Racial Hybridity, pp. 92-95:

“Often ‘spot’ is interpreted as ‘sin’, completely overlooking the physical, literal meaning. Little is seen or heard about the Mongolian Spot, except in medical books. We have examined much of the information which has been printed on the subject and have found that the spot appears on the lower back near the base of the spine. It may be an overdeveloped ‘primitive streak’ which marks the beginning development of the spinal column (Rev. Nelson Bryon, After Its Kind, p. 32). It may extend over both buttocks or into the sacral region. The spot in some cases is of maximum intensity at the point where the ‘rima glutea’ widens out on the sacrum (American Anthropologist, The Sacral Or So-called ‘Mongolian’ Pigment Spots Of Earliest Infancy And Childhood, Joseph Brennemann, vol. 9. p. 18). It may also occur on the back, the head, the shoulders, or the extensor surfaces of the legs, feet, arms, and hands, although not as frequently.

“The spot is an imbalance of pigments in the skin. Dr. Fischer describes it: ‘Since the brown pigment is deeply situated, it shows through as of a bluish color [Zarfl calls it the blue birthmark], being known as the blue spot or Mongolian spot. This patch of pigment disappears completely during the first year of life’ (Dr’s. Baur, Fischer & Lenz, Human Heredity, p. 133). The spot may be blue or bluish gray, sometimes very faint. It is of irregular size and shape. Brennemann, a professor at the Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago a number of years ago, shows two pictures in one of his articles on the subject of the large, dark, spindle-shaped pigment cells deep in the (corium) flesh which show up as the blue sacral spot (American Anthropologist, The Sacral Or So-called ‘Mongolian’ Pigment Spots Of Earliest Infancy And Childhood, Joseph Brennemann, vol. 9. pp. 23-24).

“Dr. Gates describes the spot in this manner: ‘The condition looks like a black-and-blue mark from a bruise, and is found in babes and young children of apparently all the pigmented races, including Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Negroes, Spaniards, Portuguese, Polynesians, American Indians, Eskimos and other races ... It is typically a faint bluish mark in the skin at the base of the spinal column ... In a recent paper by Suk (1928) he examined 53 pure-blooded Eskimo children from Northern Labrador. He found two kinds of spots: (1) dark blue and generally small; (2) very light blue and without distinct margin. They usually disappear at four years of age, but may persist to eleven years. He figures an extended series of the spots, in some cases partly covering the back, shoulders, arms and buttocks, with indications both of bilateral symmetry and of metameric repetition’ (Reginald Ruggles, Ph.D., Heredity In Man, p. 317). First-hand information related to me tells of great patches of pigmentation on the torso of a man of mixed White and negro parentage. These colored patches were a constant source of embarrassment and lifelong sadness to the man so afflicted.

“Rogers adds: ‘[Dr. Parsons] reports a singular case in which the color was not evenly mixed, that is, the white mother had a child that was white except for the right buttock and thigh which was black like the father (Philosophical Transactions, Jan. 31, 1765)’ (Sex and Race, 5th ed., p. 229). George Gould gives similar examples in his book (George Gould & Walter L. Pyle, Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine, pp. 232-233).

“Dr. Ashmead, once Foreign Medical Director at the Tokyo Hospital in Japan, writes: ‘The mulberry-colored spot on the skin of the lower spine of newborn Japanese and other dark races has attracted the attention of scientists for a great many years. The newly born of the races of color in East Asia, of China and Japan, of Africa, of Portuguese and Spanish-America, wherever the inhabitants have had opportunity to mix the white and black together, present on the skin of the lower spine one or more of these spots, irregular in size and outline, and always somewhat darker than the rest of the skin of the body, whether the individual is lighter or darker in type. They are blue in the Japanese, bluish-gray in other Mongolian tribes, scarcely unlike the rest of the skin in certain Indians and mulattoes, and even in some Asiatics, as observed by Matignon in the Chinese of Pekin, and by Chemin in the Annamites of Cochin, China. Everywhere the spotting appears in intrauterine life, or after childbirth, and disappears only when the individual is one or two years old. Exceptionally it remains throughout life. Sex has nothing to do with it. This violet-like spot is due to a special kind of very characteristic pigment cells’ (Journal of Cutaneous Diseases, Dr. Albert S. Ashmead, vol 23, p. 205 – emphasis added by Philip).

“Ashmead continues: ‘The Japanese race is notoriously a hybrid race: Mongolian, Malay and Negritoid or Papuan. The original inhabitants of the Archipelago were the Ainos ... Ainu in Japanese means dog. And the Ainos were always refused intercourse because of their extreme hairiness, the Japanese being extremely glabrous. Thus the name Ainos, given to the indigenes by the Japanese, meant dogs ... All Japanese can use their big toes as thumbs and use the nose to play a flute with it, as the Malay’ (Journal of Cutaneous Diseases, Dr. Albert S. Ashmead, vol 23, p. 207).

“Although the Ainos are a despised breed, they are purer than the Japanese. Brennemann verifies that the Ainos are mixed: ‘Sekiba, in a letter to Adachi, stated that he found the pigmentation [of the spot] present sixteen times in one hundred and fifty children of pure Ainos ...’ (American Anthropologist, The Sacral Or So-called ‘Mongolian’ Pigment Spots Of Earliest Infancy And Childhood, Joseph Brennemann, vol. 9. p. 2223). Grant adds that the Ainos have broad cheek-bones, indicating mongrelization (The Passing Of The Great Race, 3rd rev. ed. pp. 224-225; see also Nils Larsen & Lois Godfrey, Sacral Pigment Spots, vol. 10, p. 260).

“Returning to Ashmead’s comment about the Japanese’ big toes, Hunt writes: ‘Burmeister has pointed out the resemblance of the foot and the position of the toes of the Negro to those of the ape. The toes are small, the first separated from the second by a free space. Many observers have noticed the fact that the Negro frequently uses the great toe as a thumb’ (Dr. James Hunt, The Negro’s Place In Nature, p. 7). We therefore see that the Japanese receive their ability of using their big toes as thumbs from the negro.

“The Mongolian Spot occurs more frequently when people are more negroid than white. The spot tends to be faded when mixed-breeds are nearly pure white. Ashley Montagu found that the spot occurs in about 90 percent of negro infants (Ashley Montagu, Human Heredity, p. 243), while Brennemann says that it probably occurs in 95 percent of them. These differences show negroes in America today are mixed. Gates writes: ‘Brennemann (1907) made a study of the sacral spot in the American Negro. Of 40 Negro children under one year of age, 35 showed the mark distinctly, 4 were very light and 1 very dark in skin colour. He concludes that it probably occurs in over 95 per cent of Negro children, and gives many data regarding the occurrence of the spot in various races.’ (Reginald Ruggles, Ph.D., Heredity In Man, p. 319) ....”

While I don’t always agree with Philip Jones in everything he advocates, he is right on target in this passage. One would do well, then, to obtain a copy of his book for one’s own library. As a matter of fact, Philip addresses information on the subject of race that might otherwise take a lifetime to collect and critique.

It is especially important to be very cautious of all sources one wishes to include in one’s compositions. The following extract from the 5-volume The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 5, p. 174 is a glaring example of an erroneous narrative we should avoid at all cost:

“Ruddy. The rendering of various forms of [ad-mo-nee´], ‘to be red.’ The dark-skinned Israelites regarded a ruddy complexion as a mark of beauty ....”

It immediately becomes quite apparent that this particular author is confusing the White-ruddy flesh-tone complexion of the Israelites with that of the swarthiness in varying degrees of the Edomite-jews, who have falsely claimed to be Israelites since the 130s B.C., (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). To this very day, 99. 999% of nominal churchianity believe this blatant lie, ignoring these verses!